In re MARRIAGE OF: ANNE MARIE MALONEY and EDWARD J. MALONEY

Chicago, Illinois family law lawyers represented the parties in a divorce.<br>
<br>
The parties were married on April 1, 2006, and had three children that were born during the marriage: K.M (born in 2006), L.M. (born in 2009), and C.M. (born in 2012). On September 6, 2016, Anne filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. On January 26, 2017, Howard Rosenberg was appointed guardian ad litem to represent the interest of the parties' children. <br>
<br>
On September 13, 2019, after a four-day trial, the circuit court entered a Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage and a separate Allocation Judgment and Parenting Plan ("Allocation Judgment"). The Allocation Judgment granted the majority of parenting time to Anne. Edward was granted parenting time on alternating weekends for a total of 3 nights every 14 days. Edward also was granted "dinner" visits every Wednesday night from after the children finished school until 7:30 P.M. The Allocation Judgment ordered Edward to attend reunification therapy with the children, and after 90 days the reunification therapist would provide a letter to the circuit court with her recommendation whether alternating Wednesday night "dinner" visits should be converted to an overnight visit. The Allocation Judgment provided that the circuit court would review the letter from the reunification therapist, and "if the parties disagree, [the circuit court] shall ultimately decide" whether Edward would be granted additional overnight visits. <br>
<br>
* * * <br>
<br>
Legal issue Can a spouse be required to contribute to legal fees under Illinois law for needlessly prolonging litigation through unnecessary hearings?<br>
Headnote<br>
<br>
FAMILY LAW. ATTORNEY FEES. The court addressed whether the respondent's decision to proceed to a hearing on a petition to modify parenting time, despite low chances of success, warranted contribution to the petitioner's attorney fees under Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act for needlessly increasing litigation costs.<br>
<br>
FAMILY LAW. DUE PROCESS IN FEE DISPUTES. The court considered whether the respondent was denied due process by being refused an evidentiary hearing to challenge the reasonableness of attorney fees, ultimately finding that the lack of such a hearing warranted vacating the fee award and remanding for further proceedings.<br>
<br>
Key Phrases Attorney and guardian ad litem fees. Petition to Modify Parenting Schedule. Evidentiary hearing on fee petition. Contribution under Section 508(b). Reasonableness of the fees.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.